Wargaming logistics is a tricky subject on the hobby side. As the old saying goes, “Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics.” But the truth is, nobody wants to play a game that’s true to life on the logistics side. We want games, for the most part, where the logistical paths are easy to trace and aren’t a complicated thing to run. VG’s The Korean War does, by all accounts, a very good job of integrating logistics with a moderate amount of complexity and the depot concept. It’s not for everyone, but it does a fine job in my mind of reflecting the nature of the Korean conflict.
Chaco, on the other hand, was, well, a mess. The supply rules were unnecessarily complex for two third-world armies who fought probably one of the most useless wars in history. The game, as it was released, was not something that should have been sold to the public. It was, in a word, boring. To me, if you must write complicated logistical rules without any form of computer support for a manual wargame, you’re doing it wrong.
A designer I read in an interview once said, “it’s easy to make a complex game.” It is. Just keep adding rules. You may be enamored by your logistical rules that track every bean and bullet, but will anyone sit down to play it (ask SPI’s monster games phase)? Even the GRD/GDW Europa series used a simple logistical system for a large series of games, and I really think lines of supply are the way to go for most operational games above the level of a brigade.
Below that, replacement and supply points make more sense, as you then get into needing to reflect finite supplies because the battle you’re simulating is one of days or weeks, a relatively short amount of time in the logistical sense.
It also works at a more strategic level, like, say, Avalon Hill’s Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. It does a lot simply using Basic Resource Points (BRPs). Everything in the game has a logistical cost, and you’re making decisions for production and resource allocation, which is very realistic at that level. Again, this is a smart use of a pretty simple mechanic to do complex things and present someone with the same logistical challenges faced by those in the situation.
I think that as much as logistics has driven war for millennia, we cannot paradoxically make wargames centered on logistics for the hobby market without some serious computer support. One game that does it very well is Gary Grisby’s War in the East, recently re-released in a second edition. The game tracks pretty much everything but does so “under the hood” and doesn’t put the complicated onus of running the logistical system. Is it a complicated game? Yes. The 520-page manual is a testament to that, but it’s complicated logistics in a wargame done right to me.
The fact is, nobody wants to play wargames that you need an Excel spreadsheet or an Access Database to play. But that said, logistics are a necessary part of wargaming. We need to simulate it as it’s the “How” in the “Who? What? When? Why, and How?” It’s an important question that needs to be answered. But we cannot let the answer become so bogged down that the game becomes unplayable.
I think the main point of this article is this: We need to find new ways to reflect the modern science of logistics in wargames in simple, elegant ways. Ways that augment and complement the game instead of bogging it down in such infamous rivet counting like the infamous “pasta rule” from SPI’s The Campaign for North Africa. I think we’ve learned a lot since the days of the 1970s monster games from SPI and GDW where a game filled a dining table, the ENTIRE dining table!
The truth is, with games costing routinely between $70-$100 a copy, game companies can ill-afford loss leaders like they could 30-40 years ago. Logistics, while a practical concern in the real world (and a very worthy one at that), is one that can be a bit glossed over in wargaming, where gamers more want to see the sweep of their armies play out across a map. Is it something that can be addressed with the ubiquity of personal computing devices, such as tablets and mobile phones? I think so, as we see all sorts of board game apps supporting all sorts of board games these days. So an S-4 assistant for a board game might be a good idea if someone wants to incorporate more complicated logistical rules into a manual board game.
All in all, I hope this has all been food for thought! And, as always, Good Gaming, Everyone.
At Epoch XP, we specialize in creating compelling narratives and provide research to give your game the kind of details that engage your players and create a resonant world they want to spend time in. If you are interested in learning more about our gaming research services, you can browse Epoch XP’s service on our parent site, SJR Research.
–
(This article is credited to Jason Weiser. Jason is a long-time wargamer with published works in the Journal of the Society of Twentieth Century Wargamers; Miniature Wargames Magazine; and Wargames, Strategy, and Soldier.)